Himachal Pradesh Court November 1951 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Munshi Ram and anr. Vs. Raghubir Chand
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1951
Reported in: AIR1952HP60
Chowdhry, J.C.(1) This is a defendants' appeal in which court-tee is payable on Rs. 4,496/5/-. According to the Taxing Officer the fee is payable under the Court-Fees Act (VII (7) of 1870), as amended by the Punjab Court Fees (Amendment) Acts of 1922, 1926 and 1939, and as such there is a deficiency of Rs. 125/-. According to the appellants, the fee is payable under the Court-Fees Act of 1870 without taking into consideration the aforesaid amendments made in the Punjab.(2) In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act (XLVII (47) of 1947) the Central Government passed the Himachal Pradesh (Application of Laws) Order, 1948, which came into force on 25-12-1948. The enactments, both Central and Provincial, which were applied to Himachal Pradesh under this Order were specified in the Schedule appended thereto. One of such enactments was the Court-Fees Act (VII (7) of 1870) as amended by the Punjab Court-Fees (Amendment) Acts of 1922, 1926 and 193...
Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. A.N. Sen and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-20-1951
Reported in: (1952)ILLJ371HP
Harnam Singh, J.* * *after stating the facts * * *6. From the record it appears that the representatives of the parties accepted the issues fixed to be sufficient. In the statement of the case. for the employees the interim relief specified hereunder was claimed:150 employees' concerned in the reference have been without job and whether any salaries or allowances since the 17th April and having regard to the fact that the present adjudication having to deal with such a large number of cases is likely to last for a considerable period, the federation prays that the tribunal may be pleased to make tin interim award in regard to pay and allowance of the 150 employees concerned.7. In resisting the claim for the grant of interim relief the bank maintained:It is a question of fact to be decided on evidence produced by the parties whether the 150 persons whose cases are before the tribunal are innocent or are guilty of unpardonable act a of violence, intimidation coercion and victimisation, A...
Chandu and ors. Vs. Kirpa Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-10-1951
Reported in: AIR1952HP65
Chowdhry, J.C. 1. This is a defendants' first appeal arising out of a suit for partition between members of a Hindu trading family. As this is an appeal which was pending before the Chief Judicial Officer, Simla Hill States, it stood referred to this Court for decision as a Judicial Committee under Section 35 of the State Courts Act, 1943, by the Chief Commissioner Himachal Pradesh by Notification No. J-79-15/48, dated 14-1-1949. 2. The relationship between the parties will appear from the following genealogical table. DEVIDAS | -------------------------------------------------- | | | Pooram Goria Bhibia | | | ------------- -------------------- Jiwanu | | | | | |Durga Dhunda Bali Ram= Gokul Kirpa Ram ----------Defebdant Deceased Mt. Ratni Plaintiff Plaintiff | | window Sohanlal Chandu Plaintiff Defendant. Defendant.3. Two of the present appellants, Chandu and Sohanlal, representing one of the three branches, filed a suit for partition in Section 1998 against the members of the other t...
Lajja Ram Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1951
Reported in: AIR1952HP32
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. The petitioner Lajja Ram was convicted by a second Class Magistrate under Section 353, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. On appeal the District Magistrate altered the offence to one under Section 186, I. P. C. and reduced the fine to Rs. 25/-. He then went up in revision to the Sessions Judge, but the revision was dismissed. The sole point urged before me, as it was before the learned Sessions Judge, was that as there was no complaint in this case as defined in Section 4 (1) (h), Criminal P. C., the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to convict the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 186, I. P. C.2. There was a preliminary objection taken by the learned Government Advocate that the revision should be thrown out as being a belated one. It appears from the office report, which is not questioned, that the revision was filed on the 90th day. There is, however, no limitation prescribed for the filing of criminal revisions. Since howe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›